JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant/non-claimant No.2, has preferred two misc. appeals being CMA No.3245/2017 and 3240/2017, assailing the validity of judgment and award dated 04.09.2017 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case Nos.1291/2013 and 1289/2013 respectively. The learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award has awarded compensation of Rs.87,800/- in MAC Case No.1291/2013 and Rs.2,89,257/- in MAC Case No.1289/2013 along with interest @ 6% per annum. The learned Tribunal held both the non-claimants i.e. appellant and owner of the offending vehicle liable to pay the compensation. 2. Claimant Nemichand, after being served with the notices of the instant appealm filed cross objection on 24.09.2018 with a delay of 128 days with the prayer to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant and to enhance the compensation. Along with the cross-objection, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay has also been filed. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimants, namely, Nemichand and Devraj filed claim petitions, claiming compensation against the non-claimants for the injuries suffered by them in the accident. It was inter-alia alleged in the claim petitions that on 16.05.2013 the claimants were going by motorcycle, they were hit by a jeep (RJE-5784), which was being plied by its driver rashly and negligently. The claimants sustained grievous injuries and remained hospitalized. The incident was report to the police, upon which FIR was registered, wherein after conducting investigation, charge sheet was filed against non-claimant No.1. Claimant- Nemichand claimed compensation of Rs.14,76,000/-, whereas claimant Devraj claimed compensation of Rs.20,68,000/-. 4. The claim petitions were contested by the non-claimants by filing their replies. The appellant/non-claimant No.2 filed its reply while admitting the fact that the at the relevant point of time, the jeep was insured with it, however, other averments made in the claim petitions were denied. It was alleged that the rider of the motorcycle himself was negligent in plying its motorcycle. Objection with regard to driver of offending jeep not having a valid and effective licence was taken. Apart from this, objection with regard to delay in lodging the FIR was also taken by the appellant/ non-claimant No.3. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. The parties led their respective evidence, oral as well as documentary. 6. Apart from this, objection with regard to delay in lodging the FIR was also taken by the appellant/ non-claimant No.3. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed five issues. The parties led their respective evidence, oral as well as documentary. 6. The learned Tribunal after considering the arguments made by respective parties and considering the material produced by the parties vide judgment and award dated 04.09.2017 partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded compensation in favour of claimants, as mentioned above while fastening the liability upon the non-claimants, jointly and severally. 7. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while admitting the appeals preferred by the appellant insurance company vide order dated 08.01.2018 stayed the execution of the impugned judgment and award dated 04.09.2017 qua the appellant insurance company. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/non-claimant No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award has not considered the arguments raised and evidence led by the appellant/non-claimant No.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the accident took place on 16.05.2013, however, FIR of the accident was lodged with unexplained delay of 18 days. He further submits that in the FIR, the name of the driver of offending jeep was mentioned as ‘Dilkhush S/o Madanlal Bairagi’, however, the investigation of the FIR resulted in filing of a charge sheet against Madanlal (non-claimant No.1), who is the father of said Dilkhush. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the name of Madan Lal implicating him as driver of the vehicle was shown later without there being any reason for the same. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this aspect of the matter has not been considered or dealt with by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant thus prayed that the misc. appeals may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant liable to satisfy the award may be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for claimant/cross-objector submits that some delay has occasioned on the part of claimant/cross-objector in filing the cross-objection, which in the interest of justice may be condoned. He further submits that the cross-objector, in good faith, had misconstrued the accurate deadline for filing the cross objection. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for claimant/cross-objector submits that some delay has occasioned on the part of claimant/cross-objector in filing the cross-objection, which in the interest of justice may be condoned. He further submits that the cross-objector, in good faith, had misconstrued the accurate deadline for filing the cross objection. Learned counsel for the cross objector submits that the delay is bonafide and unintentional, therefore, the same may be condoned. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meager sum of Rs.87,800/- as compensation, which is on lower side, looking to the nature of injuries the claimant had suffered in the said accident. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the claimant had suffered 15% permanent disability and the said fact was amply proved by the claimant by exhibiting medical certificate (Ex.12) issued by the competent authority, however, the same has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the claimant/cross-objector further submits that no amount towards future prospects has been awarded by the learned Tribunal while computing the quantum of compensation. He further submits that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal @ 6% p.a. also deserves to be enhanced to 12% p.a. Learned counsel for the claimant further submits that for the injuries suffered by the claimant, he remained hospitalized for two months, however, the learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.6800/- for medical bills, whereas the bills submitted were of much higher amount. Learned counsel for the claimant thus submits that the compensation be enhanced appropriately. 11. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and the cross-objector and perused the material available on record. 12. So far as objections raised by the appellant with regard to delay in lodging the FIR (Ex.2) and changing the name of driver while filing the charge sheet are concerned, this Court finds that while the claimants met with the accident, the first and prime aim of injured, is to get first treatment and not to rush to concerned police station and lodge the FIR. The claimants after being recovered from the trauma being suffered by them in the accident lodged the FIR and, therefore, delay has occasioned in lodging the same. The claimants after being recovered from the trauma being suffered by them in the accident lodged the FIR and, therefore, delay has occasioned in lodging the same. At the time of lodging the FIR, the name of Dilkhush was mentioned by the injured while they were in traumatic state of mind, however, the investigation of the FIR resulted in filing of charge sheet against Madan Lal (Non-claimant No.1). This Court considered the submission made by counsel for the appellant that merely because Dilkhush, whose name was mentioned in the FIR as driver at the first instant, was not having a valid licence, therefore, name of Madan Lal was mentioned later on, it is seen that no evidence was led by the appellant that Dilkhush was not having valid and licence. The learned Tribunal also observed that no efforts were made by the appellant/non-claimant No.2 either to summon said Dilkhush or against owner/driver i.e. Madanlal with respect to alleged collusive deal. 13. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has considered the testimony of AW.3 Om Prakash, who stated in unequivocal terms that at the time of accident the jeep was being plied by Madanlal negligently. Thus the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while deciding the relevant issue framed in this regard i.e. issue No.3 and the appeals filed by the appellant are devoid of any merit. 14. This Court also considered the submissions made by counsel for the claimant/cross-objector Nemichand. The cross-objection filed by the claimant/cross-objector is reported to be barred by limitation. There is delay of 148 days. 15. This Court considered the application preferred by claimant/cross-objector under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and having regard to the submissions made therein, the delay occasioned in filing the cross-objection is condoned. 16. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has considered the permanent disability certificate (Ex.73) issued by the Medical Board, wherein the Medical Board found 15% permanent disability being sustained by claimant/injured Nemichand. The learned Tribunal considering the nature of injury found that as such there no adverse effect in the earning capacity of the claimant, however, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/-for the injuries suffered by him under the head of pain and suffering @ Rs.5000 for per percentage of permanent disability being suffered by injured. The claimant/injured had not exhibited any document either discharge ticket or admit ticket. The claimant/injured had not exhibited any document either discharge ticket or admit ticket. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.6000/- for four simple injuries and Rs.6800/- towards the medical expenses incurred by the injured for his treatment. The compensation awarded by learned Tribunal in favour of claimant of Rs.87,800/- appears to be adequate and the same calls for no enhancement. 16. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, this Court finds no force in the misc. appeals filed by the appellant insurance company and the cross-objection filed by the claimant/injured seeking enhancement of the compensation. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. 17. Consequently, the misc. appeals and cross-objections are dismissed. The interim order dated 08.01.2018 is vacated and the stay petitions are also dismissed. No costs.